Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis' hits...for "Rihanna"?

[rjm]

Lets face reality, EP fans are becomeing less and less.
Its very good that he have lived 30+ after his death trough his music but soon he will only be the thing that comes up old in dusty history books.
Rihanna is a very good talented person and shes still young and so succesful.
In my eyes its only one artists legacy that will live on forever and that is Michael Jackson.
If Elvis had done a world tour then maybe the would have been change.
Elvis is onley huge in The States the rest of the world dont care, its very sad.

I can give you a number. There is someone you should call.

To "Kentucky Rain"

Who ARE you? IF THEY CHANGE AGAIN, to Soundscan only, bye bye to Michael's hits. We will be LEFT with Rihanna ONLY. I am an MJ fan and YOU are an idiot!

Anf I don't like PHONEY BALONEY jerks who make Michael look bad. On an Elvis board. Did you get kicked out of a Rihanna site?

I don't think this is a legitimate "member"! MODERATORS!

rjm
P.S. REAL Michael-only fans don't even KNOW that song {your"screen name"} so YOU are a fraud!

[rjm]

This is Mr. Multiple Personality Disorder AGAIN.

BE GONE!

rjm
P.S. We need Lt. Worf to help with Security round here! {Tap Communicator pin: "Mr. Worf to The Bridge. Intruder Alert!"}

[kentucky_rain]

Lets face reality, EP fans are becomeing less and less.
Its very good that he have lived 30+ after his death trough his music but soon he will only be the thing that comes up old in dusty history books.
Rihanna is a very good talented person and shes still young and so succesful.
In my eyes its only one artists legacy that will live on forever and that is Michael Jackson.
If Elvis had done a world tour then maybe the picture would have been change.
Elvis is onley huge in The States the rest of the world dont care, its very sad.

I can give you a number. There is someone you should call.

To "Kentucky Rain"

Who ARE you, bonehead? IF THEY CHANGE AGAIN, to Soundscan only, bye bye to Michael's hits. We will be LEFT with Rihanna ONLY. I am an MJ fan and YOU are an idiot!

No need to be rude, if you cant handle some critics then get lost.
Anf I don't like PHONEY BALONEY jerks who make Michael look bad. On an Elvis board. Did you get kicked out of a Rihanna site?

I don't think this is a legitimate "member"! MODERATORS!

rjm
P.S. REAL Michael-only fans don't even KNOW that song {your"screen name"} so YOU are a fraud!

[rjm]

Ok. Fella. Post audio to the THREE versions of "Money Honey": McPhatter, Presley,and Jackson. You can't you don't have em! Go away fraud. And upload from CD not YouTube. You don't know. You are a fraud.
Security to the Bridge!

rjm
P.S. YOU get lost. You know who you aren't.

[Sergio Luiz]

Its sad and a disrespect to a music icon who gave so much to the music industry.
But by doing this Billboard only dowgrades itself.
How Billboard will be perceived in the future if it keeps changing its own rules and parameters in favor of current fads?
In the end only the music will matter and NOTHING and NO ONE, can take this out of Elvis.

[rjm]

Billboard is so thin now. It's dying.
You wonder about history is all, not the magazine. It will be gone soon. imho.

rjm

[Gregory Nolan Jr.]

Update, courtesy EIN today:


Billboard Magazine Downgrades Elvis - Follow-Up: Following our story below about the downgrading of Elvis' Billboard achievements,
the following response has been supplied by EPE after speaking with Billboard Magazine:

"The confusion seems to come from the fact that these stats in the article are ONLY
based on the Billboard Hot 100 chart,
which launched in 1958, after Elvis' landmark years of 1956 and 1957.

Since 11 of Elvis' number ones were on various Billboard pop charts over a "rapid-fire span" of
three years, three months
and three weeks, all which happened prior to the Hot 100's Aug. 4, 1958 inception, he would not
be on that particular list.

They said that prior to the Hot 100, Billboard printed various pop charts based either solely on airplay,
sales or juke box plays.
This includes the Top 100, which was a sales-based chart. Elvis' number ones on those pre-1958 charts
have been counted by some sources in conjunction with the Hot 100 when considered among number one songs
in the rock 'n' roll era.

So Billboard is in no way changing their system to reflect less number ones for Elvis and they were very much
wanting to make sure we let the fans know."

***************************************
EIN responds:

EIN understand the semantics of these pre-1958 billboard statistics,
but just as CD sales are nowadaystaken into account along with Download sales,
you cannot ignore past sales and chart placings whatever changes have happened over the years.

This stupid decision by Billboard will no doubt create the wrong historical impression with many
of their readers - and lead to the situation where such unbalanced statistics will be quoted out
of context in musical journals throughout the world.

"Chart History" will change and Elvis's amazing musical legacy will get belittled by it.

[likethebike]

Although theoretically I can understand why back in the day they included airplay in the calculations because people hearing a song a lot is very important, but I wonder if maybe even back in the day they should have went straight sales all the time. (Obviously, they can't do it now.) But thinking about how much the charts impacts radio play or impacted it once upon a time, focusing on sales would make the charts more democratic in that the play would be more reflected by what people were buying. There must have been some good reason but it seems obscure now.

[The Welz]

A NUMBER ONE IS A NUMBER ONE whether it is Hot 20, Hot 40 or Hot 100.

No, it's not. If I run a chart of the "Hot 20" it is completely irrelevant if this artist enjoyed a number one on any other chart. And if BILLBOARD just counts the number ones on the "Hot 100" Elvis isn't the top performer.

[likethebike]

That's the gist of it though. It's Billboard propping up its own chart. Nearly all the historians Whitburn, Bronson etc. when they've compiled their works felt it necessary to include those older charts to make more sense. Of course, to make more sense you would have had to stop in 1999 when singles not available for sale were included which made comparisons to previous completely irrelevant. You can't really compare Dion's #6 "Donna the Prima Donna" with say the Backstreet Boys' "I Want it That Way" when Dion had to sell between 600,000 and a million to reach his position and the BB's sold zero. I'm not saying that the BB record wasn't popular but any direct comparison is lost.

[The Welz]

The problem is, that some of you guys seem not be able to understand a chart.

The list, published by Billboard, doesn't say anything about the general success of an artist. It just ranks the artists according to the chosen paramenters. And if the parameter is "a number one hit on the HOT100" Elvis isn't on top, because this list was established in 1958.

No need to argue, no need to worry. It's just a chart.

[Pete Dube]

Billboard's statement that the Top 100 was a sales chart is wrong. At that pre-1958 time it was the Best Sellers chart that was the sales based chart. The Top 100 was a "popularity" chart that took both airplay and sales into account - just like the subsequent Hot 100 did. So the Top 100 was the forerunner of the Hot 100. Billboard's current crop of chart people would and should know this if they weren't a bunch of clueless dildos.

[The Welz]

Billboard's statement that the Top 100 was a sales chart is wrong. At that pre-1958 time it was the Best Sellers chart that was the sales based chart. The Top 100 was a "popularity" chart that took both airplay and sales into account - just like the subsequent Hot 100 did. So the Top 100 was the forerunner of the Hot 100. Billboard's current crop of chart people would and should know this if they weren't a bunch of clueless dildos.

Every chart that was set up before the sales were counted properly by the scanners of the record shops and supermarkets is worthless anyway.

[likethebike]

The problem is that Billboard is using their flawed system to make historical statements and those statements are misleading and historically inaccurate.

I do agree that the charts have always been a piss poor method of gauging a song's popularity and impact. "In the Still of the Night" by the Five Satins is a classic example, never higher than #24 in any one week but one of the most popular records of its era, now and then.

[JRtherealJR]

kentucky_rain wrote:
Lets face reality, EP fans are becomeing less and less.
Its very good that he have lived 30+ after his death trough his music but soon he will only be the thing that comes up old in dusty history books.
Rihanna is a very good talented person and shes still young and so succesful.
In my eyes its only one artists legacy that will live on forever and that is Michael Jackson.
If Elvis had done a world tour then maybe the picture would have been change.
Elvis is onley huge in The States the rest of the world dont care, its very sad.

EP fans and EP impersonators are in fact INCREASING over the years- and not "becoming less and less" as you suggest. There are more Elvis Tribute Artists worldwide now than there have ever been- a recent estimate stated there are now 2,000,000 professional and non professional Elvis acts working in the world today. Michael Jackson has just 750. Michael Jackson has not even one thousand! So who is more popular?

Las Vegas today in 2011 has 36 different Elvis shows- Michael Jackson has ZERO. So who is more popular?

The reason why Elvis' popularity eclipses Jackson's is because Michael Jackson was just a videogame- he was not a genuine artist. Jackson could not play any musical instruments at all, Jackson could not read music, Jackson mimed throughout most of his TV appearances and tours (Grammys 88- mimed, Dangerous Tour 80% mimed, History Tour 95% mimed, Madison Square Garden 2001 mimed, Motown 25-mimed) and Jackson stole most of his moves from Jeffrey Daniels and Cooley Jaxson and then refused to give them any credit at all. And virtually the entire "Billie Jean" act was blatantly stolen from Bob Fosse:

Today, in 2011 Elvis is everywhere- he is mentioned in TV adverts, he is mentioned in songs, he is mentioned in films (Godzilla, Men In Black, Wild At Heart, True Romance, Bubba Ho Tep, Pulp Fiction, Jurassic Park 2) when was the last time you heard Michael Jackson mentioned in a Hollywood film? Except SCARY MOVIE 4 where he is riduculed for wearing a wig and abducting children.

Michael Jackson is only having a temporary popularity now because he died- but in 5 years he will be virtually forgotten again- just like he was forgotten about the last 5 years of his life- it will happen again.

2011: JUSTIN BIEBER IMPERSONATES ELVIS: The biggest star in the world today impersonates ELVIS PRESLEY(not Michael Jackson). Interesting, isn't it- says a lot about Elvis' popularity in the World today 34 years after he died, does'nt it?

[Gold Record]

Elvis is onley huge in The States the rest of the world dont care, its very sad.

Let al oldies die and see what will be left.

kentucky_rain, please share with us the year you dropped out of junior high school. Come on and tell us... we won't laugh (much).

[Billy Budd]

Who cares about Billboard now? They are full of CRAP. Billboard is for Justin Bieber fans. Elvis is still number 1 without Billboard.

[Billy Budd]

Lets face reality, EP fans are becomeing less and less.
Its very good that he have lived 30+ after his death trough his music but soon he will only be the thing that comes up old in dusty history books.
Rihanna is a very good talented person and shes still young and so succesful.
In my eyes its only one artists legacy that will live on forever and that is Michael Jackson.
If Elvis had done a world tour then maybe the picture would have been change.
Elvis is onley huge in The States the rest of the world dont care, its very sad.

Sorry, that is nonsense. Elvis is still huge in Europe and Asia and not only in the States. What about Jackson's scandals?

[TONY.]

Who cares about Billboard now? They are full of CRAP. Billboard is for Justin Bieber fans. Elvis is still number 1 without Billboard.

And do 6 to 13 year old girls (ie, Justin Belber's temporary fans) really care about charts etc?!

[Herkenrath]

Billboard's statement that the Top 100 was a sales chart is wrong. At that pre-1958 time it was the Best Sellers chart that was the sales based chart. The Top 100 was a "popularity" chart that took both airplay and sales into account - just like the subsequent Hot 100 did. So the Top 100 was the forerunner of the Hot 100. Billboard's current crop of chart people would and should know this if they weren't a bunch of clueless dildos.

I agree that the Top 100 does look like the logical forerunner of the Hot 100. What caused much more confusion than this Billboard report is that Mr. Joel Whitburn opted not to use the Top 100 in his books on chart peaks for the pre-Hot 100 era but instead took the peak positions of a song in the various pop charts compiled and puplished by Billboard in the years 1955 to 1958.

So if you guys are outraged that Billboard dared to "rewrite the history books", it is not really fair, because the "18 no. 1 Hits" Elvis allegedly had only came by Whitburn's method of taking the highest peak from four different charts and than acting as if those peaks were achieved in one single tabulated chart - which was never the case.

Elvis had 7 no. 1 hits in the Top 100. If one adds this total to his Hot 100 total of 7, he actually ends up with 14 legitimate no. 1 hits in pop charts that had 100 positions and which incorporated sales, airplay and juke box information - the Top 100 & then the Hot 100.

Elvis had more no. 1 hits in the "Best Sellers in Stores" charts, but that was only a Top 30 or something and might be considered to be preferrable to the Top 100 as it relied on sales information only. But for the sake of comparability with later years, it would be an unsound move, as the Hot 100 had far more positions and airplay did play a factor.

Unfortunately Billboard stopped issuing separate pop charts with the creation of the Hot 100, so no information on "Best selling 45s" and "Most played by Disc Jockeys" during all of the 1960s and 1970s. If they had continued publishing these charts as an accompanying service we could cherrypick chart peaks like Whitburn did for the complete rock era instead of just 1955-58. Things would be more even then. For example, take Twist & Shout by the Beatles which peaked at no. 2 in the Hot 100 - selling over 1 million copies, which was a healthy number in those days (mid-1960s). Perhaps it would have peaked at no. 1 in some of the other pop charts (juke box, airplay, sales) but we'll never know as Billboard never published these. But if they had, thenTwist & Shout would have been listed as a no. 1 song in Whitburn's books. That is just one scenario. There could have been countless others. I'm just saying that Whitburn's method of creating this amalgam chart for 1955-58 is disadvantaging all those acts that came in the 1960s and 1970s when there was only one chart to hit no. 1 and not 4 or 5.

Just saying that I think this outrage that Elvis is being treated unfairly is a bit over the top.

[Elvis Australia]

Billboard's statement that the Top 100 was a sales chart is wrong. At that pre-1958 time it was the Best Sellers chart that was the sales based chart. The Top 100 was a "popularity" chart that took both airplay and sales into account - just like the subsequent Hot 100 did. So the Top 100 was the forerunner of the Hot 100. Billboard's current crop of chart people would and should know this if they weren't a bunch of clueless dildos.

I agree that the Top 100 does look like the logical forerunner of the Hot 100. What caused much more confusion than this Billboard report is that Mr. Joel Whitburn opted not to use the Top 100 in his books on chart peaks for the pre-Hot 100 era but instead took the peak positions of a song in the various pop charts compiled and puplished by Billboard in the years 1955 to 1958.
So if you guys are outraged that Billboard dared to "rewrite the history books", it is not really fair, because the "18 no. 1 Hits" Elvis allegedly had only came by Whitburn's method of taking the highest peak from four different charts and than acting as if those peaks were achieved in one single tabulated chart - which was never the case.
Elvis had 7 no. 1 hits in the Top 100. If one adds this total to his Hot 100 total of 7, he actually ends up with 14 legitimate no. 1 hits in pop charts that had 100 positions and which incorporated sales, airplay and juke box information - the Top 100 & then the Hot 100.
Elvis had more no. 1 hits in the "Best Sellers in Stores" charts, but that was only a Top 30 or something and might be considered to be preferrable to the Top 100 as it relied on sales information only. But for the sake of comparability with later years, it would be an unsound move, as the Hot 100 had far more positions and airplay did play a factor.
Unfortunately Billboard stopped issuing separate pop charts with the creation of the Hot 100, so no information on "Best selling 45s" and "Most played by Disc Jockeys" during all of the 1960s and 1970s. If they had continued publishing these charts as an accompanying service we could cherrypick chart peaks like Whitburn did for the complete rock era instead of just 1955-58. Things would be more even then. For example, take Twist & Shout by the Beatles which peaked at no. 2 in the Hot 100 - selling over 1 million copies, which was a healthy number in those days (mid-1960s). Perhaps it would have peaked at no. 1 in some of the other pop charts (juke box, airplay, sales) but we'll never know as Billboard never published these. But if they had, thenTwist & Shout would have been listed as a no. 1 song in Whitburn's books. That is just one scenario. There could have been countless others. I'm just saying that Whitburn's method of creating this amalgam chart for 1955-58 is disadvantaging all those acts that came in the 1960s and 1970s when there was only one chart to hit no. 1 and not 4 or 5.
Just saying that I think this outrage that Elvis is being treated unfairly is a bit over the top.

Herkenrath this is excellent.

Now I read this I am reminded that Elvis always had 14 number ones way back when I was just becoming a fan, 1978, but full on from 1982.

Later this increased, obviously when Whitburn's book was published.

It is 15 if you count the double sided hit Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel.

My opinion is that the Top 100 is so similar to the Hot 100 that the Hot 100 can be said to be a continuation of the Top 100 and so should be counted.

But then we have to accept 14 number ones, maybe 15? and not 17 or 18.

The Top 100 is comparable in quality and accuracy, combing all aspects of a single's performance (sales, airplay and jukebox activity), based on a point system that typically gave sales (purchases) more weight than radio airplay'. Started on the week ending November 12, 1955,

However Billboard have even up to 2008 counted Elvis at 18. if you remember they removed Elvis double sided hit Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel. in April that year to alow them to announce that 'Mariah Carey had surpassed Elvis Presley as the solo artist with the most No. 1 singles on Billboard's U.S Hot 100 Chart'.

So we have a right to be confused, and probably it is correct to say Billboard is not as wrong as we have reacted. I will think on this some more.

I published my article on this yesterday and will have to consider what you have written as to if I edit it.

But Elvis should still be at least in third place I think.

[jbnva58]

Billboard's statement that the Top 100 was a sales chart is wrong. At that pre-1958 time it was the Best Sellers chart that was the sales based chart. The Top 100 was a "popularity" chart that took both airplay and sales into account - just like the subsequent Hot 100 did. So the Top 100 was the forerunner of the Hot 100. Billboard's current crop of chart people would and should know this if they weren't a bunch of clueless dildos.

I agree that the Top 100 does look like the logical forerunner of the Hot 100. What caused much more confusion than this Billboard report is that Mr. Joel Whitburn opted not to use the Top 100 in his books on chart peaks for the pre-Hot 100 era but instead took the peak positions of a song in the various pop charts compiled and puplished by Billboard in the years 1955 to 1958.

So if you guys are outraged that Billboard dared to "rewrite the history books", it is not really fair, because the "18 no. 1 Hits" Elvis allegedly had only came by Whitburn's method of taking the highest peak from four different charts and than acting as if those peaks were achieved in one single tabulated chart - which was never the case.

Elvis had 7 no. 1 hits in the Top 100. If one adds this total to his Hot 100 total of 7, he actually ends up with 14 legitimate no. 1 hits in pop charts that had 100 positions and which incorporated sales, airplay and juke box information - the Top 100 & then the Hot 100.

Elvis had more no. 1 hits in the "Best Sellers in Stores" charts, but that was only a Top 30 or something and might be considered to be preferrable to the Top 100 as it relied on sales information only. But for the sake of comparability with later years, it would be an unsound move, as the Hot 100 had far more positions and airplay did play a factor.

Unfortunately Billboard stopped issuing separate pop charts with the creation of the Hot 100, so no information on "Best selling 45s" and "Most played by Disc Jockeys" during all of the 1960s and 1970s. If they had continued publishing these charts as an accompanying service we could cherrypick chart peaks like Whitburn did for the complete rock era instead of just 1955-58. Things would be more even then. For example, take Twist & Shout by the Beatles which peaked at no. 2 in the Hot 100 - selling over 1 million copies, which was a healthy number in those days (mid-1960s). Perhaps it would have peaked at no. 1 in some of the other pop charts (juke box, airplay, sales) but we'll never know as Billboard never published these. But if they had, thenTwist & Shout would have been listed as a no. 1 song in Whitburn's books. That is just one scenario. There could have been countless others. I'm just saying that Whitburn's method of creating this amalgam chart for 1955-58 is disadvantaging all those acts that came in the 1960s and 1970s when there was only one chart to hit no. 1 and not 4 or 5.

Just saying that I think this outrage that Elvis is being treated unfairly is a bit over the top.

Welcome to the FECC forum,Herkenrath.
As on the UKMix forum,I look forward to your contributions.

[Elvis Australia]

Herkenrath, Joel Whitburn did not cherry-pick chart peaks from 1955-58 or before as you write - at least not with Elvis.

He has used exclusively the 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart which in itself I think is a reputable chart.

I have gone through the chart and all the 11 no. 1's are in the 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart. [This is including Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel as two No. 1's]

[You can view it here, I have removed all lines [weeks] that did not include an Elvis song in at least one of the four charts.]

He did not just pick "the peak positions of a song in the various pop charts" as you say. I can't see how he would differ with other artists?

So he has used a consistent method and reputable chart up to the start of the Hot 100 in August 1958.

He would have decided not to use the Top 100 as it was only in use for less than three years and keep to the 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart to remain consistent for as long as possible, then switching to the Hot 100.

So he has used basically the 'Billboard chart of the day/era', he has used a consistent chart, and one based on sales, which to me is perfectly acceptable and with only a bit of a question over if Elvis' tally should come from the Top 100 or 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart, I consider either flows as evolution into the Hot 100, probably more so for the Top 100 however due to the fact that Billboard themselves have quoted up until at least 2008 charts complied from the 'Best Sellers in Stores' chart, I think it not only can be but must be counted in the modern rock era chart history.

Importantly it was in 2008 that Billboard announced that Mariah Carey had surpassed Elvis Presley as the solo artist with the most No. 1 singles on Billboard's U.S Hot 100 Chart that it was revealed that they had ruled that Elvis' classic double sided number one hit single, Hound Dog / Don't Be Cruel would no longer be counted as two separate number one hits. Billboard removed one number one hit from Elvis, and so Mariah was ahead.

So you see they were using this chart and have now changed the 'rules' to suit their own needs that I believe to be for self-promotion, to be able to make public announcements and more suit those they sell their magazine too and those that advertise in it.

I quote a statement from Geoff Mayfield from Billboard magazine in 2008 regarding removing Elvis' double sided No. 1 hit. 'Billboard's charts department and the magazine's ranking trivia expert, Fred Bronson, consider those two songs comprise but one single, and thus a singular No. 1 shared by the two songs'. For now this is a separate subject. However you can see how big a hit it was and that Don't Be Cruel did chart independently on the 'Best Sellers in Stores', 'Most Played by Jockeys' and 'Top 100' Charts and the combined two songs charted multiple times on all four charts, a monster hit. So Billboard had no right to once again re-write history and strip Elvis of two No. 1's for this single as they did in 2008.

So as Billboard had no problem including Elvis' number one hits up until 2008 [they would have needed to be able to quote new records and generate interest in their companies chart against opposition from 'CashBox' etc in the early year of the Hot 100 : just as they are doing today!!!] it is disingenuous to remove them now.

So I do think Billboard has dared to "rewrite the history books", and I am outraged about it.

I think looking at all their actions over the past three years they are a dishonest organisation and their motive corporate greed.

Bring back Cashbox anyone?

[Burning Love]

I guess this might depend o who is interpreting these hitss My point is in the September 18, 2004 which was referenced in this thread "Elvis 50 Years Of Rock and Roll". On page 24 there is an article "The King Of Crossover"s No. 1 hits.

There are 6 lists. The lists cover Pops, R&B, Country, AC, Singles and Pop and Country Albums. The list of No 1 Singles Has your standar 18 plus thre others.

Here is the article that is written on the page. "Elvis Presley wasn't just the king of rock n' roll. As his billboard chart history attests, he is also was the king of crossover.
Early in his career, before radio formats segmented American music, some of Presleys greatest hits-Hound Dog, All Shook Up, Let Me Be Your Teddy Bear and Jailhouse Rock- hit No. 1 on the Billboard pop, country and R&B Singles Charts.
Presley retains the record as the No 1 artist or the rock era, with the Beatles ranking No. 2 according to Joel Whitburns Top Pop Singles; 1955-2002. Presley also the No. 1 male artist.
The rerelease of "Thats All Right, Presleys first commercial single, gave the singer yet one more No. 1 ranking as it topped the Hot 100 Singles Salea chart in the July issue.
Heres a recap of Presleys no. 1 singles and albums in the United States, prepared by Billboad associate editor/ manager Keith Caufield."

On the Pop singles No 1 besides the regular 18 they list Thats All Right, A Little Less Conversation and Rubberneckin .

If the Associate Editor is putting together this list why is he not also listing a disclaimer that Elvis hits pre-1958 will not be included in the official totals?

And why is he listing Thats All Right, ALLC and Rubberneckin who onnly hit the Single Sales Chart, and not the Hot 100 as number 1's?

It just seems very strange to see such inconsistancy.

Burning Love

[memfisking]

Who cares really.

Charts everywhere have become meaningless and over the next decade the only charts to count will probably be the "Most Downloaded", "Most Watched on Youtube" etc When i was about 9 or 10 charts mattered to me because they felt like some justification to everyone that Elvis was the greatest because he had the most this and sold the most that, but as i got older i realised that i didn't have to justify Elvis to anybody.....i still don't.

So as far as i am concerned, whether it's Elvis ,Mariah, The Beatles, Garth Brooks, Led Zeppelin or Rihanna(a fantastic artist) who has sold the most albums or has the most number ones, it really doesn't matter because as far as i am concerned all that is important is that i know what Elvis means to me.